Problems of the
Page 51
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
HAULIER and CARRIER
Points to be Considered in Relation to Furniture Removal. Peculiarities of a Specialized Business
IHAVE been requested to deal with furniture removing as a prospective business for hauliers. I find that I dealt with this subject in two long series of articles, the first commencing in the issue dated August 13, 1929, and continuing until September 24, whilst the second started on February 9, 1932, and ran until March 1.
In the first one, I dealt at some length with the cost of operation and methods of working, and, in the second, with the safeguards which the furniture remover and warehouseman should take to protect himself against claims for damage and loss, also to sonic small extent with methods of advertising.
Many Changes in the Industry.
I must confess that I was surprised to find how long a period had elapsed since the publication of the former series. I had thought that, possibly, a brief recapitulation of the main arguments then used would have met the present requirements. Obviously, that will not do. There have been so many changes in all branches of the commercial-vehicle movement and in the business of furniture removal that little of the data then published will meet present-day conditions.
So far as the other series is concerned, given conditions, I recommend interested hauliers to look up those articles for that information. As regards advertising, IL may have a little more to say.
Dealing, first of all, with the broad aspect of the matter, I do not recommend the average haulier to dabble in furniture removing as a business. It is a completely specialized branch of haulage and requires expert knowledge. Only the poorest of furniture can be handled, packed and removed without expert knowledge, with absence of risk.
As, however, that class of work is unrenaunerative, or, at the best, hardly offers change for is., there is no point in considering that as furniture removing in the proper sense of the term. People who have furniture of any value are usually wise enough to employ none but expert furniture removers for its handling and they are generally prepared to pay a fair price.
Creditable Feature of the Removals Business.
At any rate, if they be not so inclined, they will be unable to get the work done, because, although there is inevitably a certain amount of rate-cutting amongst furniture removers, they are generally, as a class, sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to avoid the pit falls into which so many rate-cutting hauliers so readily tumble.
This, of course, is not to be interpreted to the effect that no haulage contractor can possibly undertake furniture removal. It does, however, mean that if he has no experience of it, he would be foolish to entertain the idea without taking steps to engage expert furniture packers to help him.
If a haulage contractor does that and if he takes reasonable care, when making his estimates, not to quote rates which are likely to be unremunerative, then, of course, there is no reaSon why he should not make a success of it and satisfy his customers. The one is, in any event, the corollary of the other, because the bulk of furniture-removing business comes from recommendations from satisfied customers.
Removal Work Not Affected by Trade Conditions.
The volume of furniture removing is not affected to any considerable extent by fluctuations in the state of trade generally. When trade is poor there is a tendency for people who were prosperous and who are "feeling the pinch" to move into smaller houses; those in small houses move into still smaller residences, and that continues right down the scale of sizes. Again, when trade improves, a reverse operation takes place, and, considered from that point of view, it is almost true to state that there is a steady flow of business available for furniture removers, no matter what may be the state of trade.
One of the factors which, until quite recently, has had a considerably depressing effect on the furnitureremoval business, has been the shortage of houses and the Rent Restriction Act, but that is a phase which is now receding. The general condition of affairs is, therefore, favourable to those who are engaged in this trade. At the same time, I imagine that competition generally is just as keen in the furnitureremoval business as it is in most others and my recommendation would be that a haulier who is contemplating entering it should make careful inquiries beforehand, to ensure that there is really an opening in his district for an energetic and capable man.
_These openings are always occurring in every business. The mere fact that there is plenty of competition is never, to my mind, justification for telling a haulier to keep out, although it does make it incumbent upon me to advise inquirers to make careful investigations before they take active steps.
I have referred to the fact that conditions have altered considerably since I wrote the series of articles in 1929. The most striking of those alterations is in relation to the type of vehicle which is being used for furniture-removal work. In those days and previously, the heavier class of vehicle of a minimum capacity of four, or even five, tons was considered to be essential. The load capacity was, and still is, measured in cubic ft., rather than in cwt.
A small furniture van has a capacity of 400 cubic ft., B42 a more popular size is 600 cubic ft., and a l'airly large one is 700 cubic ft., but lately the tendency has been to increase and there are many vans in use having a capacity of 1,200 cubic ft. In those days it was considered necessary, in order to provide 600 cubic ft. or 700 cubic ft. of body space, to have a chassis of about four, tons or five tons capacity. The bodywork itself was substantial, weighing 30 cwt. or so, and only vehicles of that rated load capacity were capable of accommodating such bodywork.
The advent of the Luton-type body and of the sixwheeled vehicle, both rigid and articulated, designed in conjunction with chassis originally of about two tons net load capacity, has altered all that and, although some furniture removers still adhere to the heavier types of van, for reasons which will be explained later, there is no doubt that lighter chassis are becoming popular.
As a general rule, a load of furniture capable of filling an ordinary van of 600 cubic a. capacity weighs less than two tons. This new tendency is, therefore, logical. If it be practicable to build a body of
ample capacity on lightweight chassis and if there be no other objections likely to arise in use, then the lighter vehicle is bound to be more economical and that, as I shall demonstrate, is the experience of some well-established furniture removers.
There is another point which considerably affects this particular aspect of the matter and that is the keen fight which the railway companies are putting up for furniture removals over all but medium and short distances. With their containers, which, after all, are, in principle, precisely the same as the old lift vans, they are able to offer the householder the same security in respect of absence of handling in door-todoor removal as is available by road.
Containers Necessitate Heavy Vehicles.
These containers, however, involve the use of the heavier types of vehicle and, if furniture removers generally can effect economies by using the lighter machines—and it seems reasonable to expect that they should—then they are putting themselves in better shape to cope with this railway competition.
The one point which must, however, be borne in mind Is that a furniture remover who would cater for all classes of business must himself be able to deal with container traffic, otherwise he will have to refuse overseas removal work, because that inevitably involves the use of lift vans or containers. S.T.R.